[–] give-it-a-try 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I don't think they should change it. If they need to, however, I think a tribe name would be appropriate. The Cherokees or something. Preferably a tribe once indigenous to the DC area.
Edit- The Iroquois wouldnt work though, no one could spell it.
[–] BirdLawyer 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Change it to Washington Fighting Negros. Then everyone will be like, "eh, you know what, Redskins wasn't so bad". And you can keep the name with no drama.
[–] Vladimir_Komarov 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Yes/No: I can see both sides. On one hand, it stems from a different time when some high profile players happened to be of first nations heritage. Under the social paradigm of the time they felt there was nothing wrong with calling themselves that, and in fact wore it with pride. As time has gone on, and our culture has grown, we generally see the labeling of a group of people by the color of their skin as wrong. I think the question of it's derogatory nature, regardless of it's intention, is more up to the people affected by it than anyone else. That all said, this is a registered trademark and longtime staple of our culture. Were this to be a proposed name of an expansion franchise it would never make it past the planning stages, but as long as this franchise has been around with this name, If anything should be grandfathered in it should be this.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
[–] dualplains ago
And Oklahoma changes to something else. Oklahoma means 'Red People' in Choctaw.
[–] uncletootie 2 points 1 point 3 points (+3|-2) ago
Wooo, I'm going to disagree with the party line and say YES I think they should change it.
Unless you are a part of a minority group, I think it's difficult to know what certain terms mean to that group. I am not Native American, but it seems like some Native American groups have taken offense to the team name, and I can see why: "Redskin" (or "yellowskin" or "brownskin") has a derogatory connotation ("Your skin is different than the dominant skin color, which is white, so you are going to be called a "redskin."). I think there are plenty other names out there that don't carry this connotation (e.g. "Senators," "Redtails," "Federals," "Renegades.")
One thing I don't understand is why Dan Snyder doesn't change the name. It's erroneous to say the name has positive connotations for people, or that he has any personal connection to it. Why not change it and make some good publicity out of "wanting to respect to Native Americans." He could have come out as the good guy.
[–] dualplains ago (edited ago)
Actually looking into the etymology of the term 'redskin' leads down a really interesting road. It was first adopted by a gathering of tribal chieftans as a way of identifying all the tribes in their dealings with the colonists. They had no term for themselves as a race, just as individual tribes and nations. Everyone assumes that it must be a derogatory term because it was used on bounty boards in the west, but it was literally being used as a descriptor. The bounty boards themselves are horrible, sure, but the term was accepted and used at the time in the same way that native american is now. If we change the name of the football team, then we need to take a look at Ohlahoma which translates to 'Red People' in Choctaw.
And Dan Snyder's been a lifelong Redskins fan. He doesn't want to change the name because he grew up watching the Redskins same as a lot of the rest of us fans. Not sure why you wouldn't think he had a personal connection to the name. I hate him for what he's done to my skins, but I respect that he's got a connection to the team as a lifelong fan.
[–] BloodPool [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You must not be a Redskins fan. :-P
I'm not trying to be coy. My wife, as I stated before is part Apache, as are her parents. They take no offense to the name and agree that if the Redskins were winning more, there probably wouldn't be as much of a controversy. The symbol for the Redskins is this, the symbol for the Cleveland Indians is this. Which is worse?
[–] uncletootie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
No I'm not a Redskins fan, and I can understand individuals' allegiance to a name they know, or grew up with. I would not like it if the Niners were renamed as the "BAYS" or "COMPUTER CHIPS" or something.
But to me, contrasting the images/logos for two teams and asking which is worse doesn't necessarily mean that the "less worse" (however you would decide such a thing) logo is acceptable. Can't they both be offensive? I guess the question is, at what point is something so offensive--and to whom--that it should be changed. If the team was named after a derogatory name for a dominant social group, would it still be standing? For example, "The Washington White Trash" or "Honkies" or (some people claim Jewish people control finance/media in the U.S. so) "The Washington Kikes."
Also, just because your family does not take offense to the name, doesn't mean others--and possibly a great deal of others--don't either.